The founder of the theory of evolutionary ethics is. Evolutionary ethics (Kuznetsov). Watch what is "Evolutionary Ethics" in other dictionaries

CHAPTER XXII.

Evolutionary ethics.

In the past chapters, we reviewed the answer that utilitarists give the question of whether the criterion of morality is that some actions are considered bad, others are good? We have seen that, in their opinion, humanity is recognized to fulfill the task of creating possible greater happiness is possible a greater number of individuals, and that any action that contributes to the achievement of this should be considered good, and any action that prevents it is bad. In this chapter, we consider T. Evolutionary ethics. As the most typical representative of this direction isHerbert Spencer,then I will set out his ethical views.

Spencer Ethika consideredthe crown of his philosophy. This is seen from the preface to his composition about the "Facts of Ethics", published in 1878, where he says that he retreats from the initial plan of "Synthetic Philosophy" and hurries to publish "Facts of Ethics", because it is afraid that this final work, behindtopic Sobody the conceived series of studies may remain unfulfilled. Numerous hints, he says, repeated in last years increasingly and clearer, showed me that I can easily lose the finally if not life, then health before, than I manage to reach the last part of my tasks I set myself, and meanwhile I believe that everythingprevious parts should be considered only as auxiliary means to perform this last part of my task 1).

1) principles of ethics. Preface.

358

First of all, you should consider the ratio of Spencer to utilitarianism, because many people consider it to be utilitarian. The answer to this question we find in his letter to D. S. Mill,in which it indicates the difference between utilitarianism and its teaching. "The item in which I am separated from the utility doctrine, as it is usually understood, is not goal to which we strive, but in method which must be adhered to achieve this goal. I admit that happiness Need to admit the ultimate goal, But only I don't think it was"The nearest goal." From this expression it would seem that Spencer is a utilitarian, he really is a utilitarian not in the sense as Mill. Spencer finds that the ideal of pleasure or happiness cannot be eliminated from any ethical system, because the question of happiness is the most closely associated with the question of life. Objeen pessimists, Spencer says that if, in the life of suffering, they would prevailed over pleasures, then life would cease because the pleasure is always an indicator of the life of the body, suffering is the indicator that life is destroyed that it is in danger. If the number of suffering was more than the number of pleasures, then life would have to stop, but as in fact, life on earth does not stop, then, therefore, pessimists are wrong. "In general, life should be considered good or bad, depending on that, it gives or no surplus of pleasant feelings." That is why no philosophical school can avoid not counting the ultimate moral purpose of the well-known desired state of feeling, called various names: satisfaction, enjoyment or happiness. Pleasure, anywhere, whenever there is any creature or creatures, there is a non-resistant element of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe ultimate moral purpose. Happiness is the highest goal, for happiness accompanies the highest forms of life 1).

Utilitarists (Bentham mainly) proceeded from that position that man but the very nature of his

1) principles of ethics.§ 16.

egoist and from a prudent calculation comes to social virtues. Spencer finds that morality is the necessary consequence of human nature and follows from its very nature. Bentam tried to prove that, although a person in nature and an egoist, but he should become fromcouple moral, Spencer finds that a person is Nature Its inevitably should be moral.

Spencer finds that "moral philosophy, i.e., the science of proper behavior, has its subject to determine how and why well-known behaviors are harmful, and other benefactor. These good and bad results cannot be random, but must be the necessary consequences. Devices things and I believe that the task of moral philosophy is to bring out of the laws of life and from the conditions of existence, what actions necessary We strive for the creation of happiness and what the suffering is striving. When it is done, its conclusions must be recognizedlaws of behavior " 1 ). The task of the moralist, therefore, to determine the laws of human nature and determine from thembehavior rules. At this point, Spencer is suitable for the Regulation, which was defended by the Stoics, claimed that a person should live accordingiction. Human life, according to Spencer, there is a special case of life of all mankind, and the latter there is a fragment of global life, and therefore the problem of the moralist is to solve the laws that determine the conditions of human existence or, or rather, the laws of world life.

Let us leave the question of morality and recall the essence of his philosophical system in general.

As we have seen, the main law, which is committed by the development of global life, is the law evolution. According to this law, development is characterized by the transition from Uniform to heterogeneous, from the simplest to differentiated. This law is subject to all processes of world life 2).

For our purpose, Spencers are essential

1) IB. § 21.

2) See above. GL X v.

36 0

well definition of life. On Spencer,"Life is nothing more than a permanent adaptation of internal relations to external." Let us explain this idea as an example. We put that some organism feels hunger, there is an internal change in it. It is necessary that there are such changes in the body that would put it in certain attitudes towards external conditions. It is easier to say, this body needs to be saturated by moving or administering nutrients inside, and if it has accomplished, it means that the biological language means that the device has happened domesticrelations K. externalconditions. Every organism seeks to adapt to environment Perhaps the best, and this desire to adapt Spencer calls behavior(At first glance, such a definition of "behavior" seems strange, but in the wording of Spencer, this term does not correspond to everyday understanding). Behavior can be good, may be bad. If the body is adapted to the environment well, then it will be good behavior; If bad, then the behavior is bad. It will be good because it makes an excess of pleasure over suffering, and bad because an excess of suffering is happening. Spencer uses the term "behavior" indifferent to all beings: and in relation to man when he reflects, to do, and in relation to the small body, carrying water and completely involuntarily adapting to the environment. In the same sense, Spencer uses the term "Moral behavior". Spencer finds that the best moral behavior will be, thanks to which the best device is happening to the external environment.

We have already seen that when he spoke about development, he gave the formula to determine which organism is more developed, as less developed. These features are the essence: heterogeneity, differentiation of the structure. Organisms that have the heterogeneity of the structure are characterized by good behavior, and vice versa. Take two organisms: some infusoria and somewhat more developed - Kolovrat and see how one is homogeneous and the other - the heterogeneous will be adapted to the environment, and

kie from this will happen consequences. The first does not have any external feelings, does not have vehicle organs, and therefore it does not foresee the appearance of the enemy. Once the water will bring it the necessary foods, another time it will take it to a larger body, which will swallow it. The organisms of this kind are distinguished by such a "behavior" that they have 99 out of 100 with hunger or are made by victims of other stronger organisms. It can be seen how they are badly adapted to the medium. In another position there is a cross-shirt. It is already equipped with a number of ciliates, some of the ridiculous vehicle organs, the senses; It is able to stop in one place, to produce a whirlpool around him and thus attract the necessary substances to themselves; Through drawing into itself its external bodies and reduce the entire body, it can protect against danger, therefore, it is better to adapt to the environment. Thus, organisms, better fit, make their lives more secure and increase the number of pleasures. If we move to the highest animal - a person, we will see that a primitive person has a little differentiated mental activity, the cultural on the contrary. And what about this happens? The life of a primitive person is exposed to greater danger due to the fact that it is badly adapted to the environment, meanwhile, as a cultural person, due to the fact that his mental life is more differentiated, it can better adapt to the environment, as a result of which his life can continue longer. And in fact, in all likelihood, the average life expectancy is the first less than the second. In addition, the life of a cultural person wideri.e. in the same unit of time, it can worry much more, its life is more intense and filled with a large number of thoughts and feelings. If multiplythe width of life on its duration, then we will get what Spencer calls sum of life. Of course, this amount of life in human cultural should be greater than the same amount of a non-cultural person.

From this we get objective Criterion for

definitions that we have to call best life. Where big differentiation, there we are dealing with higher life forms.

Between physical life and moral there is no difference: and that and the other fixture With the difference only that in the first case, a device for the outside world occurs, in the second case, an adaptation to the social environment occurs.

Thus, the best behavior is to fully adapt actions to the goals and the environment. From this definition, we get a moral criterion. "Morality," says SPAN ser. - There is a perfect adaptation of a person to a social environment. "

If you compare this formula with what we know from Bentam, for example, we will see the difference between them. At the time, Bentam found that there could be no devices between a separate individual and a social medium, because between them there is a permanent antagonism, Spencer finds that there is no permanent antagonism between the interests of a separate individual and the social environment, and it is easy to imagine such conditions. When the complete balance between the interests of the individual and the social environment comes, and then the highest amount of life will be achieved and for the other. According to Spencer, the consideration of the development of human feelings and thoughts shows that the balance between an individual and the medium is gradually established, antagonism is gradually smoothed, and finally there may be between these interestsabsolute equilibrium 1).

Spencer proves this opinion psychologicalski 2). All our feelings can be divided into three groups: and 1) selfish feelings, 2) feelings of altruistic and, finally, 3) egoaltruistic. Feelings of fear, anger affect only my personal interests, belong to my me: These are selfish feelings. Feeling altruistic we are experiencing when we mean the interests of others when we, for example, try to help the near

1) See it. "The principles of ethics". GL H.V.

2) Cm.his "grounds of psychology". §§ 503-532.

him, to deliver joy to him, etc. Finally, there are intermediate feelings, when we, for example, IV Fear of the beliefs refrain from the bad, from the desire to get approval to do well, etc., i.e. when we assume the existence of another An individual that can refer to our act in one way or another. Egoaltruistic feelings, according to Spencer, are very much changed in its development; Starting from selfish, they are moving to altruistic. From psychology it is known that feeling Sympathy is The state of the unwitting imitation of the feelings of the other. When someone in my presence is experiencing a sense of joy or suffering and, together with him I worry his condition, then it will be a sympathetic experience of feelings of another person. This feeling, according to Spencer, is developing together with mental development. Thanks to mental development, we can imagine the state of the neighbor and therefore it is better to sympathize with him. There is still a condition necessary for the development of a sense of sympathy; This is exactly necessary to endure earlier that or another feeling in order to sympathize with the person in the feelings experienced. Having accepted this in consideration, we will understand how a person becomes altruistic. If we take a primitive society, we will see that here each individual builds its well-being in a greater or less unfortunately. This is a predatory period, or, by definition of Spencer, military period.In this period, the sense of sympathy cannot develop: it is suppressed by other feelings, is in constant antagonism with egoism. But when society goes into another stage of development, industrial Another picture opens. In this period, social life is built on interaction, a person begins to conscious the identity of his interests with the interests of others. Thanks to this consciousness, the feeling of altruism is developing. If we compare individual stages of the development of society, we will see the gradual development of an altruistic feeling. Our life, compared with the life of a primitive man, is a higher stage in the development of the feeling of Altruism. With the development of society, we see an increasingly greater increase in altruistic feelings; But modern society is not

reachedstill due height in the development of this feeling. A serious obstacle is that we have not fully experienced a military period, but, according to Spencer, the time will come when and public altruism will achieve in its development of the same perfection as the parental altruism now reaches. Currently, the feeling of sympathy has not yet reached such a development, but later, only high-detached nature, exceptional individuals are capable of now, all members of society will be capable of, and each person will become altruist; and then between the interests of a separate individual and the interests of the social environment will come full equilibrium, The Golden Age will come, to which a person seeks 1). He goes, according to Spencer, in this direction due to the need for its nature.

So, what is the same, according to Spencer, human nature? This nature is such that it is sent to the highest development of a sense of sympathy. Since the human nature is striving for the Higher Altruism, then, therefore, the highest moral task of a person is to strive for the development of the feelings of sympathy and altruism. It - prerequisite To achieve equilibrium, or fully adapting a person to a social environment. Thus, the highest moral task is topromote the development process, which is a perfect adaptation of internal relations to external.

I will once again allow myself to compare the theory of Bentam and Mill with the theory of Spencer. According to Spencer, human nature is not selfish, but altruistic; It should come to harmony with a social medium not at the rate, as it argued by Bates, and part of both Mill, but by virtue of its nature. Spencer has a completely definite Objective The norm, with which one or other actions can be estimated, while Bentama and Mill, the norm is purely subjective - an increase in the amount of happiness. About Spencer's system can be said that it is based on the idea perfection.

Now consider to what extent can be satisfied with the Spencer formula.

1) By the way, it will be the moment when the compulsion inherent in the moral feeling will be absent.

It can be considered completely correct approval of Spencer, that humanity goes to the end result, which it indicates, it is precisely to establish a complete equilibrium; But he did not prove that it follows from this that humanity must On this way, go further. Why from what is so It was, It follows that so is it clear to the future? If I find out that the nature of a person has such properties that human life has one or another tendency, then I cannot see any reason for recognition that it should be for the future. For one or another ethical norms It is always necessary to some sanction, i.e. there must be something that would give the moral principle the nature of compulsion or obligation. In the moral principle of Spencer, there is no such commitment and lack. You can agree with Spencer that the moral life of a man flowed as he depicts it, but it should flow, remains unproved.

In general, it should be said that any ethics, which is built as Spencer is built, that is, by purely empirical, it can give an indication only Genesis moral feeling; she can only be descriptionthe origin of moral feelings, and by no means can indicate anything that would make the moral principle of mandatory. The obligation of the moral principle can only give ethics delivered with metaphysics.

The merit of Spencer in ethics includes what he showed that our ideas and our feelings have their own history. This thought is highly important. According to the old theory of utilitarists, it turns out that society consists of individuals in the kind of how physical bodies consist of separate atoms that are connected to each other by attraction. Old moralists argued that each individual in relation to society is the same as an atom. But how are these individuals-atoms connected? On the theory of utilitarists, it turns out that first individuals lived a separate life, but, finding it uncomfortable, they gathered, compiled a contract for which everyone decided to come from their interests in favor of others to enjoy the benefits of public life, and such

366

the way connected to society. This theory t. Naz. Contrat Social. After Spencer, the Society began to consider how something indivisible as organismand hesight naturally flowed that the life of the individual cannot be considered separately from the life of society. In history, we always meet a person as a member of society. If a person really is an integral part Social organism, whether it is possible to cut a separate cell of this organism with impunity, and can it exist separately from others? Of course not. Hobbes and Bentama each member is connected to all society mechanicallyAfter Spencer, it became clear that between all individual members of the social organism Organic.If you have an amputation of a person in a person, the connection of it with the body will be broken, and at the same time its life will stop, because each body, even each cell feeds on the body, but at the same time she herself takes part in the creation of the body , and well-being depends on the life of the whole organism as well as the well-being of the latter depends on the life of each individual cell. We see the same thing in social Life man. Everything that has a separate individual belongs not only to him, but also the social environment in which he lives. He gets upbringing in the family, development at school, thanks to the language he gets from society. All his thoughts, desires in a sense, have the property obtained from society. In a word, the individual is in full dependence on society. If so, it is clear that an individual is one cell in society's body, the life of which is closely intertwined with the life of everyone else. From here it becomes clear at least as pure altruism, So clean selfishness. Supporters of pure egoism usually argue so. I Always egoist:even in the case when I perform an altruistic action, I do egoistic. If a person suffers in my presence and I want to free it from suffering, then I act selfishly: I want to free himself From the type of suffering, therefore, I act from egoistic feelings. This reasoning is incorrect because even in this case, we would have to share feelings for straight-egoistic and indirect-egoistic;

the latter would be those that we call altruistic. Since the society has an organism, not a fictitious body, then the senses are egoistic so much intertwined with the feelings of altruistic, that we cannot ever spend the face between them and say where the egoistic feeling ends and where the altruistic is starting.

Literature.

SPENCER. The Principies of Ethies. Vol.. I - I I. 1892. Previously, part, this book came under the title: THE DATA OF ETHIES . 1879. The Russian language was transferred under the title: "The basis of the science of morality." Spb. 1880. There is a very bad translation of the "principles of ethics" under the title: "scientific foundations of morality." Spb. 1896. There is also a translation edited by Rubakina.

About Spencer:

G u yau.La Morale Anglaise CONTEMPORAINE. 1889.

Gyuo. Modern English moral philosophy. Spb. 1900.

Fulie Criticism of the newest moral systems. Spb. 1900..

Collins. The philosophy of Herbert Spencer. St. Petersburg. 1897.

Sidgwick. History of Ethies. 1892.

Sorley. Ethies of Naturalisai. 1885.

MackenSie. A manual of ethies. 1897.

Muirhead. Elements of ethies. 1897.

Williams. A. Review of the Systems of Ethies Founded on Theory of Evolution. 1893.

Sylvan Drey. Herbert Spencer's - Theory of Religion and Morality. 1887.

Sinclair. Der Utilitarismus Bei Sidgwick Und Spencer. 1907.

Other representatives of evolutionary ethics:

Darwin.Human Origins. Spb. 1896.

Leslie Stephen. Science of Ethies. 1882.

Alexander. Moral Order and Progress. 1889.

Huxley. Evolution and Ethies. . (In Russian. Language is the translation of K. Timiryazev in His: "Some basic tasks of modern natural science." M. 1895.

Evolutionary ethics - a kind of ethical theory, according to which morality is rooted in the nature of man and morally positive is such a behavior that contributes to "the greatest duration, latitude and completeness of life" (Spencer). Evolutionary approach

ethics formulated Spencer, but the main ideas of evolutionary ethics were proposed by Ch. Darwin, which in essence tried from a naturally scientific point of view to substantiate the principles perceived from the philosophical empiricism and sentimentalism of ethical. The main ideas of Darwin, developed by evolutionary ethics, are as follows: a) Society exists due to social institutions that a person (like social animals) satisfies in society to itself like; Sympathy, and services that turn out to be near; b) Social instinct is transformed into morality due to the high development of mental abilities; c) a person has a strongest behavior factor, due to which it turned out to be possible to formulate public opinion requirements (community requirements); d) Social instinct and sympathy are strengthened by the habit. In a modified form, modern biological theories of morality take all these postulates, the main of which is that humanity passed in its formation of group selection for morality, in particular to altruism. In the 20th century Thanks to the achievements of evolutionary genetics and ethology, a number of ideas and concepts were expressed, which seemed to show biological conditionality, the evolutionary predition of human behavior, in particular moral. If the classic evolutionary ethics (K. Kessler, P. A. Kropotkin, J. Huxley, etc.) spoke about the quality of those necessary for the survival or reproduction of individuals or groups that are selected during evolution, the Etology (Ch. O. Wheatman, . Lorenz, N. Tinber-gene, etc.), based on the genetic conditionality of animal behavior and man, tends to carefully; a detailed study of psychophysiological behavior mechanisms; Socyobiology (E. Wilson, M. Rewz, V. P. Efroimson, etc.) Develops the following specific genetic concepts:

1) The concept of "cumulative fitness" W. D. Hamilton. According to this concept, the individuals of the individual certainly takes place, however, it is subordinated to the adaptability of the birth, i.e., the aggregate adaptability to which the natural selection is directed and which is not caused by the survival of the individual, but the preservation of the corresponding set of genes, the carrier of which is a group of parents. T about., It becomes clear that evolutionists are called altruism: it is such an individual behavior that increases the possibilities of adapting and reproduction of the related group (even if the appropriate chances of the individual decrease);

2) The concept of "egoistic gene" R. Dawkins allows you to give an alternative interpretation of the theory of cumulative fitness. The latter belongs exclusively to the group of birth, but at the same time the main "agent" of the selection in the process of evolution is not a population or group, but some set of genes characteristic of this related group. The individual is, according to Dawkins, the machine for the survival of the gene, genetic set. Altruism at the level of individual behavior turns into genetic egoism - and as such turns into visibility;

3) The concept of "mutual altruism" of R. Trivers, which receives an explanation to helping behavior both within the group and between representatives of different, i.e., unrelated, groups, as well as between representatives of various species. The essence of the concept is as follows: one individual assists the other, believing that in turn it will pay the same. Here are the difficulties of an ethologic nature: for example, how to maintain balance and which guarantees against deceivers can be. As observations show, there are undoubted signs in animal behavior, allowing them to judge the intentions and purposes of "counterparties"; 4) The theory of epigenetic rules (Ch. Lamsden and E. Wilso-on) or mechanisms arising in the human psyche (and have a corresponding physical substrate in the brain) in the pro-process and as a result of the interaction of the body and environment. These rules have a decisive impact on the thinking and human behavior. Epigenetic rules are divided into two classes: a) automatic processesunited links between sensations and perceptions; b) processes, waters inside and about perceptions and operating cultural data. According to this theory, the moral of Zashifro-Van in the epigenetic rules (primarily in secondary); Moreover, the utilitarian principle of Mill (see "utility-rismism") and the categorical imperative of Kant is rooted in the WTO-richest epigenetic rules. In other words, the environment, including social, turns out to be a factor in the formation of organ-nic and functional structures, in Particularly those responsible for moral behavior; t. o. Socyobiologists remove the reproach addressed to them in a genetic detergent and bottom.

In case of unconditional significance of scientific results, the evolution of the theory of human behavior is precisely as an explanatory concept of evolutionary ethics is insufficient: remaining at the level of the general stronger definitions, it is impossible to give adequate theory of morality. Evol-Qosichy ethics from moral philosophy The conceptual apparatus is destected. Evolutionary ethics refuses the theoretical inheritance of ethical and philosophical thought and justifies morality as a form of expedient or adaptive behavior. It is characteristic that when describing morality, behavior at all costs without the concepts of intention, freedom, creativity, universal requirement, does not consider the fundamental to understand the morality of the antithesis between due and existing. Morals in the evolutionary ethics over-personna, and to the extent that it is depicted as the functioning of certain genetic mechanisms oriented on organismic, population, but not personal goals, - and the bad. An analysis of fundamental moral imperatives shows that they are aimed at curbing the man of their passionate nature and spiritualization of their sensuality, that is, its "nature", and suggest a person's ability to control their needs, consciously subordinate their interests to the interests of other people, based on how from public institutions and from higher spiritual values.

Cooperation and altruism - cornerstone social Behavior Homo Sapiens.

Already about 2 million years ago, early Homo, apparently, cared for toothless old men. But this is altruism - feed the helpless old man.

Therefore, it is impossible to fully understand the evolution of a person, without sobering in evolutionary mechanisms leading to the development of altruistic behavior. It is even more important that it still has to sometimes hear that the evolution allegedly cannot explain the emergence of Altruism. In fact, evolution excellently explains this. How do you try to figure it out.

At this slide, definitions are given. The main thing is to remember that this is, of course, a metaphorical language. By virtue of the features of our thinking, it is convenient to attribute goals and interests to live organisms. In fact, of course, no conscious interests in most living things are not, the more they are not in the genes. But thanks to the action of natural selection, living objects are arranged and behave as if they had selfish interest, which is to multiply as possible to multiply, to convert their genes in the following generations. And when some organism suddenly begins to behave contrary to this mercenary interest, and his behavior is beneficial to the interests of other organisms, in this case we are talking about altruistic behavior. It is just a convenient metaphorical language, without which it would be extremely difficult to intend many important biological ideas and theories.

So, we have two main questions.

On the one hand, it is clear that many life tasks It is much easier to solve joint efforts than alone. Why then did the biosphere and did not turn into the kingdom of universal love and friendship? This is the first question.

The second question is opposite to the first. How can there be altruism during evolution in the course of evolution, if the driving force of evolution is the natural selection - the process seems to be at first glance, absolutely egoistic?

The thing is that this "first look" is wrong. Error here in mixing levels on which we consider evolution. Evolution can be viewed at different levels: genes, organisms, groups, populations, ecosystems. At each level - their own patterns. At the level of genes, the evolution is based on the competition of different options (alleles) of the same gene for dominance in the gene pool population. At the gene level there is no altruism and can not be. The gene is always selfish. If a "good" allele appears, which to the detriment of itself will allow to multiply to another allele, this altruistic allel will be supplanted from the gene pool and will simply disappear.

But if we transfer the view from the level of genes to the level of organisms, the picture will be different. Because the interests of the gene do not always coincide with the interests of the body. The gene, or, more precisely, the allel is not a single object, it is present in the gene pool in the form of a variety of identical copies. "Interest" all these copies are the same. After all, they are just molecules, and they are absolutely identical. And to them, and us, and the natural selection is absolutely anyway, which one of the same molecules will multiply, and which is not. Only the total outcome is important: how many copies of the allele were and how much it became.

The organism, on the contrary, is a single object, and in its genome may be present, speaking simplifier, only one or two copies of the allele that interests us.

Sometimes the selfish gene is beneficial to sacrifice one or two of its copies in order to ensure the advantage of the rest of its copies that are concluded in other organisms.

Evolutionary ethics - a kind of ethical theory, according to which morality is rooted in human nature and morally positive is such a behavior that contributes to the "greatest duration, latitude and fullness of life" (Spencer). Evolutionary approach in ethics formulated Spencer. However, the main ideas of E.E. were suggested Ch. Darwin, which essentially tried to naturally substantiate the principles perceived from the philosophical empiricism and ethical sentimentalism ( YUM., A. Smith). The main ideas of Darwin regarding the conditions of development and existence of morality, developed by E.E., are as follows: a) society exists due to social institutions that a person (like any social animals) satisfies in society to itself like this; Sympathy and services rendered to the neighbor are also flowing from here; b) Social instinct is transformed into morality due to the high development of mental abilities; c) a person has a strongest behavior factor, due to which it turned out to be possible to formulate public opinion requirements (community requirements); d) Social instinct and sympathy are strengthened by the habit.

In a modified form, modern biological theories of morality take all these postulates, the main of which is that humanity passed in its establishment of group selection for morality, in particular altruism. In the XX century Thanks to the achievements of evolutionary genetics and ethology, a number of ideas and concepts were expressed, which seemed to show biological conditionality, the evolutionary predition of human behavior, in particular moral. If classical E.E. (K. Kessler, P.A. Kropotkin, J. Huxley, etc.) spoke about the qualities needed to survive or reproduction of individuals or groups that are selected during evolution, then Etology (Ch. Wheatman, K. Lorenz, N. Tinbergen, etc.), based on the genetic conditionality of animal behavior and man, seeks to a thorough, detailed study of the psycho-physiological behavior mechanisms; Sociobiology (E. Wilson, M. Rewz, V.P. Ephroimson, etc.) reveals the specific genetic concept of "cumulative fitness" (U.D. Hamilton), "Egoistic gene" (R. Dawkins), "Mutual Altruism "(R. Trivers), epigenetic rules (Ch. Lamsden, E. Wilson) explaining the mechanisms of evolutionary selection. The significance of the scientific results of the evolutionary theory of human behavior is generally unconditional. However, precisely as an explanatory concept of E.E. Insufficient: remaining at the level of the generaltric determinations, it is impossible to give adequate theory of morality. Borrowed E.E. From moral philosophy, the conceptual apparatus is deprived of its usual characteristics. E.E. Refuses the theoretical inheritance of ethical and philosophical thought and justifies morality as a form of expedient or adaptive behavior. It is characteristic that when describing morality, behavior at all E.E. costs without the concepts of intention, freedom, creativity, universal requirement; E.E. Do not interest the fundamental to the understanding of the morality of the antithesis between due and existing. In E.E. Morals are superonal, and to the extent that it is depicted as the functioning of certain genetic mechanisms oriented to organisms, populatory, but not personal goals - and the bad. An analysis of fundamental moral imperatives shows that they are aimed at curbing the man of their passionate nature and spiritualizing their sensuality, i.e. His "Nature", and assume the ability of a person to control their needs, consciously subordinate their interests to the interests of other people, based on both social institutions and from higher spiritual values.

Literature:

Darwin Ch. The origin of a person and sexual selection. Spb. (B.G.);

Kropotkin P.A. Ethics. T. 1. The origin and development of morality / he. Ethics. M., 1991;

Ryuz M., Wilson E. Darwinism and Ethics // Questions of Philosophy. 1987.№ 1;

Efroimson V.P. Pedigree altruism (ethics from the positions of the evolutionary genetics of a person) / genius and ethics. M., 1998;

DOWKINS R. THE SELFISH GENE. Oxford, 1976;

Lumsden Ch.j., Wilson E.O. Genes, Mind & Culture. The Coevolutionary Process. Harvard U.P., 1981.

Dictionary of philosophical terms. Scientific revision of Professor V.G. Kuznetsova. M., Infra-M, 2007, p. 683-684.

Evolutionaryetics- The idea that the evolutionary process contains the basis for a complete and adequate understanding of the moral nature of a person, is the idea of \u200b\u200ban old and lost reputation. In the XIX century It was popularized by the English scientist-encyclopedist Herbert Spencer, who began to defend an evolutionary approach to understanding the ethics even earlier than Charles Darwin published its "origin of species" in 1859, he began to transform into a holistic sociopolytic doctrine, known for several inaccurate name "Social Darwinism" . In our century, however, evolutionaryetics In any embodiment, it causes much less enthusiasm. Undoubtedly, this is partly due to the fact that the traditional evolutionaryetics, i.e. Social-Darwinism, he was degenerated into the barely covered justification of the most rude compatibility in business practice. Partly evolutionaryeticshe left the Favor due to a murderous criticism of both biologists and philosophers. On the one hand, such a scientist, like Thomas Huxley, who, being a big supporter of Darwin, possessed a huge authority in evolutionists, argued that the Pet had no reason to withdraw ethical principles from the evolutionary process. On the contrary, Huxley argued, our moral responsibilities are such that all fibresses of our creature have to deal with the evolutionary process. On the other hand, such a philosopher as J. E. Moore showed that the Spencerian approach to moral philosophy was abused by inconsistencies, contradictions and unforgivable errors. As a result of these different reasons, evolution was rejected as a possible source of understanding of morality, and the eyes turned to the search for more plausible directions. . Such scientists like Julian Huxley 2 and Feodosia Dobahan 3, two leading architects of our modern understanding of the evolutionary process, always adhered to the view that there should be some connection between our evolutionary animal nature and our highest moral aspirations. Although, in fairness, we will note that these scientists were often forced to recognize that they did not fully understand, about the proof of which relations could be discussed. In such a situation and remained evolutionaryetics- As an idea discredited, but the refusal of which, however, caused a vague sense of discomfort from her few supporters, if not supported by Harvard sociobiologist in recent years (researcher of the evolution of social behavior) Edward O. Wilson. In his numerous publications over the past fifteen years, he has energetically argued that the relationship between evolution and ethics is much more extensive and stronger than the most recognized or allowed most. What is really in an evolutionary process can be found a lot from what is true value for human morality. Indeed, Wilson even went to argue that the moral philosophy, which modern professional philosophers create, for the most part, is simply incorrectly oriented, and that, probably, it is time to remove ethical issues from philosophers and "biologization". Nevertheless, there are philosophers who feel now that the challenge of biology should not and cannot be eliminated so simple. It is true that Wilson's work, in particular, and other biologists in general, proving that evolution contains the key to an adequate understanding of ethics, replete with miscalculations and explicit errors. But only to defend or rush in critical attack - So misses much of what can have a great value even for a professional philosopher. In the end, it is impossible to deny the fact that we, people, do not essence the special creation of God - God, who wished to create us in their image and like a few thousand years ago. Rather, we are the essence of a long-term, slow, gradual natural process. We are smart animals, but still animals. We are obliged to take this fact even then - and especially then - when we think about the human itself of all human attributes, which is our moral feeling.

I am convinced that modern evolutionary Biology indicates that such an understanding of the evolutionary process is completely mistaken. In fact, success in the struggle for existence is often achieved by more means of cooperation and morality than aggressiveness. Starting to the development of this provision, I want no ambiguity in understanding one point. I am not going to say that we are in reality representing the instinct of animals or that we are always selfish and aggressive - even if sometimes we hide such features. (Although I, of course, would agree that in us, as it seems to me obvious, it is often present to a greater or lesser extent.) My thesis is that people from nature are non-estate, sincere, moral - and it is Not contrary to, but thanks to the evolutionary process. If you use a term that is often used in such discussions, I would say that, as a result of evolution, people from nature are altruists. They think, intersect and come in the light of the criteria of good and evil. I am going from the fact that biologists-evolutionists, especially sociobiologists, are now known that cooperation plays a huge role in the animal world, and that this is the result of natural selection. Simply put, joint actions with other organisms more often bring much more benefits than trying to fight against everyone and everything. There are various mechanisms with which it is supposed to explain this interaction, and the most famous among which is probably a "related selection", where relatives are assisted to each other, increasing their own reproductive perspectives, and "mutual altruism", where - Application workers cooperate because they may interpret partners in return. Such a rod social interaction It is widely confirmed - from Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) up to primates, and although much here has yet to be learned, no one today doubts it in its important evolutionary value, nor in its origin from the selective process. Such interaction is more often known under the above-mentioned name "Altruism". It is important, therefore, it is noted that in this sense and in this use this term is used metaphorically. When biologists talk about Altruism, they imply social interaction that expands evolution opportunities, where such opportunities are usually expressed in increasing reproductive success. From here it still does not follow that any appropriate action is preceded by a conscious intention or that such an action at least in some sense is guided by the feeling of good and evil. In other words, it does not follow from this that when the biologist speaks about Altruism, he thereby implies the manifestation of genuine altruism. Ants - "Altruists". But we do not have absolutely no foundation to think that they are altruists. The second empirical remark that I would like to do is that human beings are very largely animals needing "Altruism" and at the same time very skillful in the establishment of "altruistic" relations. What we need Altruism is obvious. We are not particularly fast, not particularly strong or physically developed. We achieve biological success only for the reason that we act together. As people became more and more skillful in Altruism, they were increasingly resorted to him. As they became more and more often to resort to, they even more sophisticated their ability to use them. I emerge that what would be the True Communication between Human in Man and His Biology, we, of course. In no way programmed as hard as ants. I do not deny that any elements of human altruism could arise from a similar form - for example, some bonds between parents and children are programmed in us, but as a common principle it seems clear that people have the property of freedom, which ants are deprived. We simply cannot afford not to take care of your offspring - at least because biologically, it is completely independent and cannot cope with life difficulties. Therefore, despite the fact that we are "Altruists", this first option associated with blind biological determinism is not, apparently, the most importantly, according to which the evolution attracted us. We need to find a certain mechanism that leads us into interaction, but not thoughtless and blindwise, but at least in fairly effective p pragmatic motives. I believe that morality is this third way. In other words, I want to say that genuine altruism may well be an evolutionary response to the need of human beings in Altruism. According to modern evolutionary ideas, on how we think and act, it has a subtle, structural level, influence our biology. The specifics of my understanding of social behavior can be expressed in approval that these congenital dispositions encourage us to think and act morally. I suppose, because to act together and be "altruists" - in our evolutionary interests, the biological factors are forced to believe in the existence of disinterested love. That is: biological factors made altruists from pass. We are free to make morally responsible actions or refrain from them. Sometimes we do what we consider the right, and sometimes that we do not consider it right; But from that soon, that sometimes we do not make what we consider the right thing, it should not yet be that we stopped counting it right. Finally, another moment on which I would like to stop. Genuine altruism works only if we believe in it. If I know that in reality there is no such thing as morality - morality, which in a certain sense enters my flesh and blood, or, if you like, morality, which is "objective," - then I, perhaps, everything is broken and I will live only with my short-sighted selfish interests. I believe that, apparently, our biology has led not only the ability to morally thinking, but also the conviction that morality in a certain sense is the essence of ourselves. As for Wilson, the concept of "epigenetic rule" was put forward to them with the young physicist Charles Lamsden. It is assumed that this is a generation of the predisposition caused by genes and the guide growing organism, manifested in a mature creature in the form of abilities and inconsistencies to think and act in one way or another. Speaking of indirect evidence, I would refer to the growing amount of the arguments supplied by the study of the social behavior of animals, especially such higher primates as chimpanzees and gorillas. We now know that we, people are very close (in the biological sense) to chimpanzees and separated from their development line only six million years ago. Thus, it should be expected that the behavior of chimpanzees is at least quasi or tonomal. And in-depth studies of primatologists deliver more and more reliable evidence that this is actually so. Nevertheless, it is still found that animals have the oldest individuals (especially) perform a peacekeeping and regulatory role, which is undoubtedly more than simple compatibility with the picture that I outlined if the latter corresponds to reality. . We are morally ultimately because natural selection found it profitable. Life is a balance between the desire as much as possible for yourself and the interests of the social hostel. The selection encourages us to immut-off, literal, nonmetaforic egoism, to take care of our own interests. Interestingly, since we also benefit from social cooperation, then we also developed a balance mechanism, thanks to which we become truly moral creatures, or altruists. There are many cases when the need to combat the results of natural selection and with it himself is obvious. For example, when the World Health Organization declares the fight against pathogenic viruses, it is directed against the Forces of Nature. However, only the complete Cynic would say that such an amoral action. The whole essence of the evolutionary ethics that I defend is that the substantive ethics It works because and only because it has such an additional property as a sense of duty, which encourages us to overpand the barrier of our selfish motivations and go to the help of neighbor. It is precisely because we consider to help your duty to help the starving child, and not just want to help him or believe that it is sometimes thorough to help the starving child, which is why our desire to help starving children has a solid foundation. Do not be this sense of debt, permeating and towering over our desires, social cooperation and development, and ultimately "Altruism", could not exist at all. Since the time of Darwin, we learned the same thing that evolution is not a meaningful directional directional branching process, which is in a particular direction to the creatures of the highest dignity, in other words, to people. Evolution is not a progressive process, as directed to heaven, like a staircase or an escalator. Rather, evolution is a slow winding process, according to its very essence, not leading anywhere. The correct metaphor here is not a chain, but a tree or coral.